A Telegraph reader is forced to delay his retirement because of bank blunder –
before our consumer champion steps in.

We applied to extend the term of our mortgage when it came to the end of its existing term for an additional 12 months as there was a shortfall of £957.67. We agreed that this should commence from August 2011 to coincide with my proposed retirement in August 2012 at the age of 65 and duly returned the forms to the bank.

It was not until early this year when we received a further letter from the bank that we discovered that the monthly payments had not been taken from my wife’s account and that we were in arrears. Initially the bank denied having received the necessary forms but, after further complaints, discovered that they had indeed been received and scanned but no action had been taken.

While the bank agree that they made the mistake, they are putting the onus on us for not checking our bank statements.

Because of this, I am now having to try and extend my employment when I had already agreed to a retirement date. If this cannot be altered, I am uncertain as to how we will be able to make the necessary payment.

We feel the bank should take a more sympathetic approach to the problem and offer more than to waive the £60 fee plus the £25 that was offered.

As you say, this is a salutary lesson to everybody to check their bank statements. As this hadn’t been done in this instance, you were oblivious to the fact that the modest shortfall in your mortgage was not being paid off. You would not have felt able to retire while the mortgage was still running.

My involvement led to the Bank of Ireland UK itself making good the £447 you thought had been paid when it hadn’t been. You say this means your forthcoming retirement can begin as originally planned.

The bank delayed paying after my plan’s maturity and I missed another opportunity

My wife had a three-year Defined Returns Plan 2009 which matured recently. With a lot of luck and a smidgen of skilful timing, we managed to hit near the bottom of the FTSE (sub 4,000) so for the past year at least there was never a doubt that the policy would pay its full benefit.

My wife received a letter a week or so before maturity saying that she would hear soon after the maturity date as to the final figures and reinvestment options. “Soon” was in fact eight business days and two weekends. Funds will be repatriated in the next five business days by cheque, which then will have to clear through the banking system.

In reality, £78,000 of my wife’s money to which she was entitled very soon after maturity will not be available until three weeks at least. During this time, economic ownership of this money will be lost by the snail-like, doubtless deliberate, processing of a subsidiary of Barclays.

NC Herts

This is the wealth and investment management arm of Barclays which used to be known as Barclays Wealth.

The terms and conditions you sent me actually say: “We will contact you approximately six weeks prior to the maturity date to confirm what you want us to do with the cash proceeds of your plan.”

As it was, you actually received a letter around 10 days prior to maturity which simply advised that the plan would mature shortly. Furthermore, you did not receive your final notification until approximately 11 days after maturity and therefore your maturity payment was subject to an unacceptable delay.

You understandably felt that to have to wait three weeks to receive the proceeds of the plan was not fair. Nor did you understand why the payment was made by cheque rather than electronically. This caused you to miss the closing date of a two-year bond with a different provider, which was paying 4pc gross at the time. You distrusted the bank’s motives in all this.

Further to my involvement, the bank has now paid you £519.34. This redress amount includes an interest payment of £19.34. The remainder is to compensate for the inconvenience and the missed opportunity to reinvest the proceeds in the way you had intended.

The provider says it is looking into introducing the facility of making payments by electronic means to all its clients as soon as it can. It also says that it has reviewed the communications that it sends to customers ahead of maturity to ensure that the next steps are made clear, which hadn’t been the case in this instance. Hopefully, therefore, this issue won’t raise its head again.

My crossed cheque from Santander ended up in a fraudulent account

I am writing to you in desperation to try and resolve this nightmare situation that I am experiencing with Santander.

This all started when I tried to close my Isa account two months ago. After a delay, I received a cheque for £5,225 from Santander. I immediately mailed this to my main bank but it never received it.

I have contacted Santander many times by telephone, letter and email advising them that the cheque appears to have been intercepted. Santander says it has been cashed, although it was a crossed cheque. My bank confirms it has not been processed to my account.

I am still waiting for my £5,225. As a pensioner this is a large amount of money for me.

HH Suffolk

The cheque was intercepted and paid into an account that wasn’t yours at a quite separate bank. Santander admits that it should have told you more about what was going on. It did, at that stage, issue a compensation cheque of £150, but it then cancelled it in error and there the matter stood on all fronts.

After my involvement, it was established that the account your money had gone into had been opened fraudulently. On discovering this, the bank the account was with closed it, extricated the £5,225 and returned the money to Santander. Santander then sent it, this time by telegraphic transfer, to where you had intended it to go in the first place. The compensation offer was increased to £250 and this has now been paid directly to an account you still have with Santander.

'I am sorry, I didn’t get that’: I am being driven crazy by automated banking

I am writing with regards to the Bank of Scotland telephone banking service because I have been having endless trouble in recent months from its automated computer. In the last seven weeks, I have had to receive no less than five security numbers due to the computer “not recognising” the numbers I have entered or spoken.

I am 79 years of age but neither deaf or stupid, terms which I would like to apply to the service, although the representatives are helpful.

It is difficult recently to distinguish whether the voice is asking for the fifth or sixth number.

MC Scotland

This became particularly upsetting when, immediately following your sister’s death, you had to transfer money from your savings account for expenses in Ireland and a flight for the next day. The computer failed to recognise the two numbers from the fourth security number sent to you.

I approached the bank, which explained that unfortunately the repeated security numbers had

placed you in a cycle whereby the previous one kept being overridden. It now asked you to disregard all previous numbers and ordered a

new security number, which you received in a separate letter. You have since tried this and it seems to be working.

Turning to the issue of the difficulty of distinguishing whether the fifth or sixth number was being asked for, I am told Lloyds Banking Group will shortly commence a pilot test whereby the voice request will ask “please give digit number five”. You have been sent £100 for goodwill.